We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.

News: Game of the month for Civ V - feedback appreciated

Civ 5 will soon be released and I would like to invite everyone to share their ideas and proposals on how we can improve the way we run the Game of the Month competition. Please use this thread to voice your opinion, don't be afraid to post silly ideas, and be kind to each other

Hmm ... for starters, do we want to put up a link to the last time we had this discussion (tier system proposals, [or was that tear? ], polls on tiers, IIRC) or would we prefer to just forget all of that?

No time just now to hunt that up ...

One thing that a brand new version gives us is the chance to revisit the awards structure, and perhaps some of the speed and score algorithms.

Here is one idea that has been bouncing around in my head ...

In some of the immortal or diety games, I frequently see early on that I don't have a path to victory. But I do have an opportunity to survive and even thirve, even if not #1 (or 2 or ... 6 ). Our current system actually penalizes continued play in terms of points in the score globals (not winning is always a 0 in speed). So you get better points by resigning after some number of turns where the decay function really sets in.

What if we made the points you get if you don't win some function of base score, rather than Firaxis score? Or the better of the Firaxis score and some appropriate function of base score? This would give some incentive (at least to me) to continue a game where winning is out of reach, with the goal of making a civilization that is as rich and advanced as it can be (given it's neighbors, etc.).

Currently, we give medals to the best speed-adjusted scores (since Firaxis score includes a speed factor), awards to the fastest victories of particulary types regardless of score, and the cow to the largest winning base score. Anything here that we want to do differently?

Do the low awards still make sense?

Are there any other game milestones that we want to recognize or award?

Ha...I was just think about the GOTM for CIV5 and when yall might actually start it up after release.

hmmm...I'm not sure how things will translate from CIV4 to CIV5. I never really played anything before CIV4 although I do own III now. That is, will the best CIV4 players automatically be the best CIV5 players. Not sure. Some players have a knack for the mathematical side of the game which really helps their game. Point is: The GOTMs seem to be dominated by an elite group of demi-god players. This does not bother me. I learn from these player and I'm really not concerned about being a top player. However, without knowing the ins and outs of the scoring system and all that goes into, I think it would be nice to add some alternate awards that reward players of lesser ability. For instance, award the most improved player based on previous comprehensive results and a base number of GOTMs played (obviously, a certain number of GOTMs will need to be played first but this could apply to the CIV4 stuff now). Also, an award for best result per difficulty save - adventurer, contender, challenger.

Another thing I think would be cool is some one-off GOTMs like a Game of the Year GOTY or some thematic games here and there for fun. These one-off games could be made to be rather unusual or difficult. I realize regular GOTMs can be rather unusual or difficult, but the one-off games may allow map-makers to try something they normally would not do in a GOTM. OR maybe an offshoot of the GOTM that uses a basic CIV5 mapscript/scenario like Earth18 (I assume there will be something like this). So basically a King of the World style GOTM.

"Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity." Christopher Morley

I am very happy that we have an elite group of players that play (so the rest of us can learn), but not always the way that they dominate the awards.
A few things I do find a bit odd about GOTM is that:
- the elites do not often play the Challenger save.
- people win the same types of victories over and over (me included)

So, I am not advocating tiers, I don't think there are enough players for that. But I do think we should have 2 saves:
A standard save, and another save a lot harder for past winners.

But not just any win. If a player has won a fastest cultural for example, for them to get another fastest cultural they must use the 'harder' save. But that same player can still take the standard save and win fastest space victory. The elites could still have their bragging rights, to see who can win the 'harder' save Eptathlon, but the 'no spreadsheet losers' like myself, might be able to compete for a lower level award, and then really try my skills with the higher level award.

This would force people to work harder for the same victory OR try different types of victory.

1) Good points neil - and i think they enhance my comments about the award system

2) I know there have been some GOTMs with special rules or such, but it is uncommon. I'd like to see more games with specials rules. Special rules could be different settings that change gameplay - like raging barbs or unrestricted leaders. Or setting one victory condition for everyone to achieve. Other options include the role-playing type rules that we find in the madscientists games or just anything different that the game creator feels might make the game more interesting - like the SGOTMs. Of course, I'm not sure how this will all apply to game in CIV5. Basically though the idea is to make GOTM games standout from normal games. These idea might make CIV4 GOTMs more interesting too.

3) Market the GOTMs more. Although there is a good bunch of folks playing GOTMs, I'm surprised that more people don't play them. I've tried to plug them here and there on the Strat forum. Why not just make a sticky thread in the strat and general forums about GOTMs - what they are and why you should play them.

"Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity." Christopher Morley

Here's a quick idea: annual awards not for any players--but rather for game creators. I propose that at the end of each 12-month cycle, we vote on the best games themselves regardless of who won. For example, we could have awards for "Best Warmonger xOTM Scenario," "Best Peacemonger xOTM Scenario," "Most Enjoyable Overall xOTM," "Most Unique xOTM," etc.

Let's invent some awards to reward the hard work of our superb GOTM staff!

Personally I would rather the first GOTMs for civ 5 be pretty vanilla (hahaha).

All the fun XOTMs like Robinson Crusoe and Prof. Befudleov are great for a 5 year old game, but I'd like to see civ 5 GOTMs with basic settings, minimal use of world-builder at least at first.

Or maybe (if not too much work for the staff) since there will be no BOTM or WOTM we could have a "basic" GOTM with little map-maker intervention and a "fancy" GOTM with heavily modified maps and scenarios.

Partcipation in spoiler threads will be more useful for a new game... some way to encourage would be nice. But I think being a new game folks will naturally want to talk about strategies they have cleverly figured out or ask about things that happened that they didn't understand. Maybe thatäs enough.

I would like to see the C5GOTMs start at a very low difficulty level, but ramped up in successive months much like is done now.

Other than that, before I know the game its hard for me to make suggestions about anything else.

I'd suggest not jumping the gun on anything. The game is probably going out of the gate with numerous bugs/balance issues (sad but true), and will require patches before meaningful competition is possible. If the GOTM system is too rigid from the start, it might be sub-optimal when the game changes.
I suggest a "beta" GOTM phase, since we all want to play them and develop strategies together, but first start keeping official records (ie. pantheon of heroes/eptathlon) when the game is stable enough.

For the actual games, something similar to the C-IV system with difficulty cycles and a mix of random and heavily edited maps works nicely.

Or maybe (if not too much work for the staff) since there will be no BOTM or WOTM we could have a "basic" GOTM with little map-maker intervention and a "fancy" GOTM with heavily modified maps and scenarios.

Click to expand...

I like this idea a lot. Maybe have the basic GOTM every month and a fancier GOTM every 45 days like the WOTM. All this could be adjusted once the first expansion arrives, of course.

I suggest a "beta" GOTM phase, since we all want to play them and develop strategies together, but first start keeping official records (ie. pantheon of heroes/eptathlon) when the game is stable enough.

Click to expand...

True, but it's still a level playing field at first despite any bugs the game my have. Maybe a beta gotm the first month or so, or just start the series after the first month. I would think a patch would come out fairly soon after release. It would be nice to get up an initial GOTM fairly soon just for the fun and education of discussing the game and strategies amongst ourselves in the spoiler threads.

"Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to be always part of unanimity." Christopher Morley

How fast can the staff crank out a HoF Mod for Civ5 anyhow? I expect the game will be available for several weeks before any such mod (to police a competition with) would be available.

So there's more time to discuss the "Official" GOTM's after we all have a bit of experience with the gameplay. Probably no need for "Unofficial" or "Beta" GOTM's since there will be plenty of games to follow and shadow in other places on Civ 5Fanatics forums. I'm sure of that.

I'd like to see more competition. IMO there are not enough players for tiers or even for the current system of competition. What is the value of a Fastest Cultural Award (or a Gold medal) when you were the only one aiming for Culture (or Points)?

So my proposal is to have a goal victory type for each game. Consequently, only 1 award per game. Everybody fighting for that award and ranks based on performance against each month's goal.

This way, everybody would be interested in everybody's writeups, since everybody would be aiming for the same goal.

1. Rather than just relying on a HOF mod, require players who are chasing a medal to play on a hosted pitboss server. (Treat non-hosted games as equivalent to the adventurer save).

2. Periodically -- say at the end of each difficulty cycle -- play an "open hand" game, where players are encouraged to post their saves in the spoiler threads and read spoilers before eligible. (Naturally, the medals in that game wouldn't count for much.) Although the post-game reports are very informative, I think there'd be much more interest in reviewing and studying games if the game is a communal game still-in-progress rather than one that might just have been published a month or more after you've finished playing.

3. A few more unusual-setting games. (Eg, starting in a later age, advanced start, known-map, ...)

4. Bring back the Quick-Start-Challenge, and maybe give it some prizes.

So my proposal is to have a goal victory type for each game. Consequently, only 1 award per game. Everybody fighting for that award and ranks based on performance against each month's goal.

This way, everybody would be interested in everybody's writeups, since everybody would be aiming for the same goal.

Click to expand...

I agree somewhat, but I would keep the medals for highest score (assuming it still makes sense) and maybe have a target VC for an award instead of one for every type. Same thing could be done with the current XOTM, where players sometimes agree (usually lower level games) to compete for a certain VC in the pregame thread. But making the change would probably be unfair to people targeting eptathlons.

I agree with jesusin somewhat, as well. There are too many awards. From the little I've seen, they might have nixed some of the VCs in 5? Maybe this sorta resolves itself... I'd definitely get rid of the low awards and cow (don't really get the point of that one).

Maybe instead of gold-silver-bronze, there are just two medals for highest score and fastest win (assuming that the two are just as incompatible in Civ 5, that there's no AP-cheese equivalent, etc.) That would make it a bit like high-low poker - not everyone's going for the exact same thing, but there's a choice between two.

I like the idea of having everyone try for the same VC on a given XOTM game but I'd like to acknowledge the highest score as well. So I propose 3 fastest finish awards (1st, 2nd, 3rd) plus a single highest score award (essentially replacing the cow). Not sure if an eptathlon should require all 1st place finishes for each VC or not under this plan.

Alternatively, we could stay with highest score and instead "suggest" a recommended VC for each game that gives you a score multiplier if you use that VC.

While this is obviously true, creating a rigid GOTM system that requires a high number of entries to not make the awards meaningless is a bit shortsighted. What then happens when V's popularity drops in (hopefully) several years? We are left with a system like the current IV one where thee awards are sometimes silly but changing the system seems unfair too.

shyuhe said:

So I propose 3 fastest finish awards (1st, 2nd, 3rd) plus a single highest score award (essentially replacing the cow). Not sure if an eptathlon should require all 1st place finishes for each VC or not under this plan.

Click to expand...

Whether medals for fastest finish or score make most sense is hard to determine before we see how scoring works in the game. I think we should be open to both options for now.
An eptathlon like that would be truly an exceptional achievement.. Which is good, it should be. Of course, that would require the target VC be periodic, which may not be optimal in terms of game creation. And we still need to know how VC's even work in the game.